It Takes Families to Make Up a Village

Article excerpt

The phrase "it takes a village to raise a child" gained
currency several years ago. The African aphorism was invoked by
those who sought to defuse concern about deteriorating families.
The subtext was: If it takes a whole village to raise a child, it
isn't such a big deal if a child has one parent or two.

Hillary Rodham Clinton seized upon the phrase just as it was
becoming a cliche. But the phrase has gone beyond cliche - if
Howard Fineman of Newsweek is right - and has become the heart of
the 1996 campaign.

Robert Dole indirectly challenged Mrs. Clinton in his
acceptance speech, saying, "It doesn't take a village to raise a
child, it takes a family."
At the Democratic convention, Mrs. Clinton insisted on her
version. "Of course, parents, first and foremost, are responsible
for their children." But they are insufficient, she argued, to
raise a "happy, healthy, hopeful child. It takes teachers. It takes
clergy. It takes business people. . . . It takes a president."
Well. Bill Clinton has certainly shrunk our concept of the
chief executive. Where once we vested presidents with authority
over war and peace, taxes and tariffs, this president seems to be
in charge of curfews, cigarettes and school uniforms. Mrs. Clinton
now says he's in charge of ra ising our children.
Mrs. Clinton didn't even make the case for her side as well as
she could have (she does so a little better in her book). Even
those well disposed toward her would have to pause over the notion
that business people are required to raise your kids and mine.
Her argument would have been better cast as follows: "Parents
are the single most important ingredient to raising happy, healthy
children. Everything our common sense suggests about two-parent
families is supported by social science data. Children of intact
families experience less of every pathology - poor school
performance, trouble with police, suicide, early sexual behavior -
than do children of divorce. …